Talk:Frölunda (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 25 December 2016
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Frölunda (disambiguation) → Frölunda – Page Frölunda was moved to Västra Frölunda last year but no tidying up was done afterwards, and still points there as a {{R from page move}}. I've done some bits of tidying up, but in doing so it seems clear to me that this page should be moved over the redirect as there is no primary topic. If the page simply needed a {{R from full name}} that could have been created instead of moving the page; I can only presume there's no primary topic, therefore the DAB belongs at the base page name. Various redirect (Frolunda, Frölunda, Froelunda, Froelunda (disambiguation) and Frolunda (disambiguation)) would need to be tidied up as the result of the move, but that would be done automatically by a double-redirect bot. About fifty pages link through Frölunda, but few if any through others. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Removal of primary topic
[edit]User:Fuortu I'm looking at the mess around this dab, and Västra Frölunda IF and List of Västra Frölunda IF sections. For more details see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9. Seems to me, the primary topic was boldly removed with the justification that the title changed, not a lot more. The title is somewhat irrelevant for selection of a primary topic, so this seems like a revert to previous consensus is prudent. As the article seems to satisfy a primary topic, and all items here are related to it, this seems like a broader consensus decision needed. Would you agree, and self-revert? I see you've not edited in over a month, I will revert in the meantime... Widefox; talk 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)